Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)vsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0
See exactly how Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) controls map to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) maps to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 with 15% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 41 Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Enforcement and Penalties.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 41 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Enforcement and Penalties(8 mappings)
Chapter I - Preliminary Provisions(1 mappings)
Chapter II - Punishable Acts (Section 4)(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) comparisons
Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) has 41 controls across its framework, while CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (15% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Enforcement and Penalties, where 23 Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) controls have no direct CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
Of 41 total Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) controls, 6 map directly to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls — representing 15% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) to CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
35 Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) controls have no direct equivalent in CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Enforcement and Penalties with 23 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) and CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is Enforcement and Penalties (23 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.